Citation : 2006 Local Law (CG) 34
The Chhattisgarh High Court has set aside the conviction of a man sentenced to ten years’ rigorous imprisonment under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, citing serious lapses in compliance with Sections 50 and 55 of the Act. The ruling was delivered by Justice Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh in a criminal appeal arising from a 2003 judgment of the Special Judge (NDPS), Ambikapur, Surguja.
The appellant had been convicted under Section 22 of the NDPS Act for alleged possession of 10.05 grams of brown sugar and sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment along with a fine of ₹1 lakh. The prosecution claimed that a police sub-inspector, acting on secret information, had recovered two packets of the contraband from the accused’s clothing during a search conducted near a school in Gram Asola.
However, the High Court found that the mandatory safeguards under Sections 50 and 55 of the Act were not followed. Section 50 mandates that the accused be informed of the legal right to be searched in the presence of a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer, while Section 55 requires that seized substances be properly sealed and kept in safe custody by the officer-in-charge of the police station.
Justice Deshmukh observed that the notice served to the accused did not clearly inform him of his right under Section 50. The search officer only asked if he wished to be searched by an S.D.O. (P)/C.S.P. or a Magistrate, without mentioning the option of a Gazetted Officer. The testimony of police witnesses was inconsistent, and independent witnesses did not support the prosecution’s version of events.
The court also noted the absence of evidence showing that the seized packets were sealed and stored in the police station’s Malkhana as required under Section 55. The Malkhana register did not record that the packets were delivered in sealed condition, raising doubts about the integrity of the seized substance.
Relying on the Supreme Court’s ruling in K. Mohanan v. State of Kerala (2000), the judge held that mere questioning of the accused about whether he wanted to be searched by a senior officer does not satisfy the statutory requirement of informing him of his right. Consequently, the High Court ruled that the prosecution failed to prove that the substance tested by the Forensic Science Laboratory was the same as that seized from the accused.
In conclusion, the High Court acquitted the appellant, declaring that the conviction could not stand in light of the procedural violations. The court directed that the appellant be released immediately unless required in another case, and ordered a refund of the fine if already paid.
Case Details : Cri. Appeal No. 658 of 2003, Govind Ram vs. State of Chhattisgarh (20.01.2006)
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Savita Tiwari, Adv. For Respondents/Defendant: Ravindra Agrawal, P.L.
Acts/Rules/Orders:
Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Section 22, Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Section 50, Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Section 55
Cases Referred:
Bhola Ram Kushwaha vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 2001 SC 229 : ( 2001 ) 1 SCC 35; Bahadur Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr. AIR 2002 SC 289 : [ 2001 ]Supp 5 SCR 430 : ( 2002 ) 1 SCC 606
======
नशीले पदार्थ – प्रक्रिया का अनुपालन न होना – एन.डी.पी.एस. अधिनियम, 1985 की धारा 22, 50 और 55
जांच अधिकारी को सूचना मिली कि अपीलकर्ता के पास ब्राउन शुगर (brown sugar) है। इस पर उसने अधिनियम की धारा 50 के तहत नोटिस देकर तलाशी की कार्रवाई की। तलाशी के दौरान अपीलकर्ता के पास से ब्राउन शुगर बरामद हुई। सत्र न्यायालय ने अपीलकर्ता को अधिनियम की धारा 22 के तहत दोषी ठहराते हुए सजा सुनाई।
अपीलकर्ता ने यह कहते हुए अपने दोषसिद्धि को चुनौती दी कि तलाशी और जब्ती की प्रक्रिया में धारा 50 और 55 के प्रावधानों का पालन नहीं किया गया।
प्रश्न: क्या अधिनियम की धारा 50 और 55 का अनुपालन नहीं किया गया था?
निर्णय: अदालत ने कहा कि धारा 50 के अनुसार आरोपी को यह स्पष्ट रूप से बताया जाना चाहिए कि उसे यह कानूनी अधिकार है कि उसकी तलाशी किसी गज़ेटेड अधिकारी या मजिस्ट्रेट की उपस्थिति में कराई जा सकती है।
लेकिन वर्तमान मामले में जांच अधिकारी ने केवल यह पूछा कि क्या आरोपी चाहता है कि उसकी तलाशी गज़ेटेड अधिकारी या मजिस्ट्रेट की मौजूदगी में ली जाए — यह बताना पर्याप्त नहीं है कि उसे ऐसा कराने का अधिकार है। अतः यह धारा 50 का अनुपालन नहीं माना जाएगा।
जहां तक धारा 55 का सवाल है, वह कहती है कि जब्त किए गए पदार्थों को मलकाने (Malkhana) में रखने से पहले थाना प्रभारी को उन पर अपनी सील लगानी होती है। इस मामले में थाना प्रभारी की सील नहीं पाई गई, इसलिए धारा 55 का भी पालन नहीं हुआ।
परिणाम: दोनों धाराओं के अनुपालन न होने के कारण अपील स्वीकार की गई और अपीलकर्ता को दोषमुक्त (acquitted) कर दिया गया।
